1 

### Richmond, Jonah

From: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 12:03 PM To: Richmond, Jonah Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Smith, Peterj Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead -Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070-AK02) Attachments: EO 12866 Interagency Comments Lead Rule 2.docx

Jonah,

Some additional comments for the Lead rule came in this morning. Please find the attached comments.

Best, Danielle

From: Jones, Danielle Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: 'Richmond, Jonah' <Richmond.Jonah@epa.gov> Cc: hofmann.angela@epa.gov; Smith, Peterj (Smith.Peterj@epa.gov) <Smith.Peterj@epa.gov> Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead

‐ Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070

‐ AK02)

Jonah,

Please find the attachment with the interagency reviewer comments on the Lead

‐ Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements final rule.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Danielle Y. Jones Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Phone: (202) 395

‐ 1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 /13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 1. The draft amendment itself does not use the term “online” but simply refers to renovator refresher training as either having or not having hands

- on training. In the part of the amendment regarding notification of renovator or LBP training courses, the terms “electronic learning” and e

- learning” are used, and all usage of the term “online” occurs in the preamble. Consistent terminology should be used. Functional descriptions of the terms might be inserted in the preamble at the end of Section A, Hands

- on Training, or a new section could be created to discuss and define online training. Where appropriate, new definitions should be included in the regulatory provisions.

2. The draft preamble indicates that EPA anticipates an increase in the number of certified renovators by allowing online refresher training at prescribed intervals during an individual’s lifetime of certification. In order to accomplish this goal without confusion am ong certified renovators and those striving to become certified, clarification in the draft of the meaning of several terms, including “online training,” “electronic (e

- learning),” “trainers who teach an online course,” and “training providers that teach t he refresher course,” would be appropriate. It is unclear in the amendment whether EPA intends to require a live instructor for the online presentations, or to allow a training provider who would simply direct trainees to a website where they take a cours e at their convenience perhaps without assistance from a live instructor being available, or something in between; EPA should clarify this.

3. It is important that RRP initial and refresher training focus on skills as well as retention of factual information. Skill training is not easily transferred through computer screens, as EPA acknowledges by retaining the requirement for hands

- on training for alternating refresher certification courses. Therefore, it is important that EPA clarify which types of online training will be allowable and under what circumstances.

4. EPA should provide, in the preamble, information about the success (effectiveness and usage) of the online versions of the initial renovator course in English and Spanish that are discussed on
EPA’s website at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/training

- courses . This could include, for example, the numbers of individuals who have received RRP certification through e

- learning versus face

to

- face classes , what evaluation EPA has conducted of the effectiveness of online training, and, if it has conducted such evaluation, how the results have affected its decision to allow it for refresher training where hands

- on is not required.

5. Online learning for the ref reshers for a 3

- year certification period may encompass various strategies including use of computerized platforms and instructional tools such as videos, audio recordings, photographs, and interactive exercises. For example, viewing by a trainee of a 4

- h our video on Youtube (or a similarly functioning website), or listening to a lecture or podcast through a training provider’s network for a fee, in itself do not constitute adequate online learning experiences or provide opportunity for assessment by an in structor of the trainee’s competency in using the material presented.

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 /13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 6. Generally and traditionally, online learning is described as consisting of synchronous and asynchronous types, but other online learning approaches may exist as well. Setting the issues of potential identity verification or fraud aside, EPA should consider the use of instructor

- led online training settings with a date certain for delivery and reference on the certificate. Asynchronous training, by design, does not occur at the same time for all participants, so that citing a specific date on a certificate may be problematic. Although the use of a live instructor provides insight and feedback, and is available to answer questions through chat boxes, Question and Answer opportunities, or blogs to assess individuals’ performance, live instructors
will come with an increased cost.

7. Another generic issue with online training is the difficulty associated with ongoing course changes and maintenance of the material and format presented that will eventually need to be changed over time. EPA should consider developing a model online curriculum for the 3

- year refresher course that can be modified to include state and/or local requirements. This will keep changes to a minimum to minimize the diffic ulty when verifying which version of an online curriculum a student used and what the course content included. For example, this commenter realizes that, should federal or state lead

- based paint and/or lead

- based paint hazard standards change in the futur e, courses would have to be modified (one real purpose of refresher training) to reflect regulatory updates. This can be expensive when changing online presentations for training providers not having made significant investments in Information Technology support staff. Again, EPA’s experience with the online initial RRP training would be helpful in this regard.

8. The draft discusses areas of potential fraud by referencing criminal penalties. The draft is subject to different interpretations of fraud. EPA should clarify its intended scope of fraud for the online training situation, and provide, in guidance, further options to reduce the potential for fraud or misrepresentation.

9. Specific comments:

a. How will the instructor verify who is: i. Attending; lines 19 2

- 196 just says student will be present in 2 years. ii. Participating throughout the presentation. iii. Paying for, and getting, the certificate iv. Able to change the name or dates on the certificate? b. How will the instructor ensure that the language of the presentation is appropriate for each of the attendees?

c. How will the instructor deal with multiple platforms, software versions, and varying internet speeds? d. Will online recertification training be available to the EPA

- authorized states if they amend their agreement?

e. If online recertification training is allowed by an EPA

- authorized state, will that recertification be recognized as well: throughout the US? only in EPA

- run states? only in other EPA

- authorized states? nowhere else?

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO12866 /13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 f. Lines 201

– 202: Refresher training cannot produce more renovators than are already certified. Please check the wording.
g. Lines 313

– 320: Is not the main purpose of scheduled training notification is to enable to monitor for quality? Please check the wording. h. Lines 333

– 336: Sh ould not training providers be submitting students' names every 10 days, not 30? Please check the wording.